Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M.), chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, delivers remarks following a meeting between U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus at the U.S. Capitol March 17, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Listen

Listening...

/

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus said in a statement Friday that President Trump’s comments about Haiti, El Salvador and several African countries are “shameful, abhorrent, unpresidential” and deserve “our strongest condemnation.”

Any deal on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, that doesn’t give a pathway to citizenship for young immigrants and their parents is a “nonstarter,” Lujan Grisham said.

“It’s a nonstarter for, certainly the Democratic caucus in the House, for all the obvious reasons,” she said. “You don’t want a second-class set of citizens inside the United States. We don’t want to create more issues that we have to address later.”

Interview Highlights

On creating a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients

“There has been a very steady, clear movement by many Republicans that a pathway to citizenship must be included. And so while we’ve got some members that clearly disagree — and [House Judiciary Chairman Bob] Goodlatte is one of them — that’s the minority, and a minority voice here I don’t think wins the day in any any efforts to find a permanent solution for DACA.”

On whether she feels confident a DACA bill could emerge that would have Democratic support, or support from Congressional Hispanic Caucus

“I do, and I think having [California Democratic Rep. Peter] Aguilar as an original co-sponsor of [Texas Republican Rep.] Will Hurd’s bill is a great signal. I want to be really clear that the Hispanic Caucus — well before my time on that caucus, and certainly before my time as chairwoman — has been very clear that a guiding principle for comprehensive immigration reform, and for issues related to Dreamers, is that a wall is a nonstarter. It’s one of those red lines: interior enforcement, more detention beds and a wall.”

On why discussion about a “smart wall” is OK, versus a physical wall

“If it’s technology and drones, and the impact is in areas where you would never put a wall, it doesn’t make any sense, then that’s probably defensible. Roads is an example, equipment right at border crossings that help you both X-ray vehicles and really look for drugs like fentanyl, those are all things that we think improve border security. Because it’s called a ‘smart wall’ is not in and of itself an indication to the Hispanic Caucus, or other Democrats, that were building a 2,000-mile structure. The devil will be in those details.

“I have described this precarious process in this way: We are threading a tiny needle, and the eye of that needle is nearly microscopically small, and I’m using a rope. But I still believe that members of Congress, both sides of the aisle, the House and the Senate, can come together. And I know that many of the folks that we have been working with for months are now ready to identify those details and come together in a meaningful way next week.”